Monday, February 22, 2016

True Believerism is a concept the
Cruz supporters on the right have been struggling with for quite awhile, as
they scramble to explain away every questionable act or statement from the
candidate God himself has apparently anointed (and is willing to kill for). He couldn't possibly have done x, because he's the One True Conservative; and, conversely, no one else is worthy, because only Cruz is a True Believer in conservatism.

This True Believerism isn't limited to the right, though. Unfortunately, it's something I see on the left from some Bernie supporters who argue that*
Clinton is little more than a Republican in Democrat’s clothing, a sort of
political apostate. So as time allows over the next days, I’m going to address
a few of the claims I've heard, about why Bernie is the One True Liberal.

First up: super PACs.

Bernie doesn’t have an authorized
super PAC. Clinton does. So Bernie is running a principled campaign and doesn't benefit from PAC
money, whereas Clinton is a sell-out who loves super PACs; Bernie is the
true liberal here, and Hillary is the establishment turncoat. Right?

No, no, and no. It’s just not true
that Hillary is the only Democrat reaping the rewards of super PAC money this
season. On the contrary, Bernie has reaped greater benefits from PAC money
than Hillary has.

But the union is not just busing
nurses into Iowa. The
union’s “super
PAC” has spent close to $1 million on
ads and other support for Mr. Sanders, the Democratic presidential candidate
who has inspired liberal voters with his calls to eradicate such outside
groups. In fact, more super
PAC money has been spent so far in
express support of Mr. Sanders than for either of his Democratic rivals,
including Hillary
Clinton, according to Federal Election Commission records.

So if you believe that Bernie’s
revolution is free of the corrupting influence of super PAC money, that, unlike
Hillary, Bernie’s rise has nothing to do with cash and super PAC’s, you’re just
factually wrong.

Now, it must be noted that these are
liberal PACs spending on Sanders, as
opposed to spending from a candidate-authorized PAC – because, unlike Hillary,
Bernie does not have an authorized PAC. To my Bernie supporting
friends who realize that he is benefiting from the PACs to this degree, this difference is often crucial – despite Bernie being the recipient of
more super PAC support than Hillary, they'll argue that not personally
authorizing it demonstrates a commitment to principle that Hillary lacks.

I’m sorry, but I don’t buy that. Here's why.

Let’s say I decry The Thing as
horrible, and swear up and down that I will never do The Thing to win. But my
friends and followers (with no objection from me) are doing The Thing, so I'll win.

This allows me to reap the benefits of personally opposing The Thing; and reap the benefits of my supporters doing The Thing; all while my team trashes the other team for benefiting from doing The Thing.

That’s great politics. It's brilliant politics. I’m just not convinced that it's principled opposition. (And I suspect those who insist otherwise would be of a different opinion if Hillary managed to position herself as a stalwart opponent of PACs while silently reaping such enormous benefits from them).

Which isn’t to say I blame Bernie
for not causing a stink about the PACs supporting him. Unfortunately, that’s
the only way to win right now. You don’t get to change the rules until you win
the game; and you can’t win unless you play by the rules, as they are now. Not what you want them to be, but what they are. It
sounds cynical, but it’s true. And this is something that those running
pro-Bernie efforts understand.

“I do appreciate the irony [of the
super PAC spending],” said RoseAnn DeMoro, the executive director of National Nurses United.
“All things being equal, we would rather not be doing this. On the other hand,
we want to see Bernie as president.”

If Bernie wants to win, he needs this
kind of money. I don’t blame him for neglecting to turn his principled stance
against PAC money on those supporters who are willing to spend for his benefit.
It’s the pretense (mostly coming from the aforementioned subset of supporters) to a campaign
that occupies a money-free moral high ground, a campaign that eschews the
pay-to-play rules that all candidacies are subject to, that doesn’t ring true.

The fact is, neither Democrat (and
no Republican either, for that matter) will get into the White House without
significant spending, and without tons of super PAC support. Not until Citizens
United is gone, anyway. Hillary acknowledges this and authorized a PAC to spend
on her. Bernie decries PACs, but he benefits from them anyway (more than
Hillary, in fact). There is no One True Liberal here. Hillary is pragmatic.
Bernie is idealistic. But at the end of the day, both candidates are where they
are because of super PAC spending. Whether they authorized it or simply reaped
the benefits.

* Note: I'm talking about a very specific subset of Bernie supporters. If that does not describe you,
this doesn’t apply to you. There are many, many Bernie supporters who do not
say this – and if you’re one of them, please know that I am not including you in that group just
because you also support Bernie.